What is kenosis in theology?

Understanding Philippians 2:6-7

Kenosis is one of the most profound and debated concepts in Christian theology. The term comes from the Greek verb kenoo, meaning 'to empty,' used in Philippians 2:7 where Paul says Christ 'made himself nothing' (literally 'emptied himself'). The question at the heart of kenotic theology is: what exactly did the eternal Son of God give up, set aside, or restrain when He became human?

The Christ Hymn: Philippians 2:5-11

The foundational text is what scholars call the Carmen Christi — the Christ Hymn:

'In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death — even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.'

This passage traces a dramatic downward-then-upward movement:

1. Christ existed 'in very nature God' (en morphe theou) — He possessed the essential form, nature, and attributes of deity
2. He did not regard equality with God as something to 'be used to his own advantage' (harpagmon) — He did not cling to His divine prerogatives
3. He 'made himself nothing' (heauton ekenosen) — the kenosis itself
4. He took 'the very nature of a servant' (morphen doulou) — servanthood was His chosen identity
5. He was 'made in human likeness' — genuine incarnation, not mere appearance
6. He 'humbled himself' — going lower still, to obedience, death, and crucifixion
7. God 'exalted him to the highest place' — vindication and glorification

What Did Christ 'Empty' Himself Of?

This is the central theological question, and Christians have answered it in several ways:

View 1: Emptying of the independent use of divine attributes (Orthodox/Classical)

The most widely held position across church history is that Christ did not surrender any divine attribute but voluntarily chose not to exercise certain attributes independently. He remained omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent in His divine nature, but in His human experience He voluntarily limited Himself.

This explains passages where Jesus displayed divine knowledge (John 2:25 — He knew what was in people's hearts) alongside passages where He appeared to lack knowledge (Mark 13:32 — He did not know the day or hour of His return). In His divine nature, He knew all things; in His human experience, He chose to operate within human limitations.

Church fathers like Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, and the Chalcedonian Definition (451 AD) affirmed that Christ is 'truly God and truly man... without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.' The divine and human natures are united in one person without the divine nature being diminished.

View 2: Emptying of divine glory and prerogatives (Reformational)

Many Reformed theologians, following John Calvin, argue that the kenosis involved Christ veiling His divine glory rather than abandoning divine attributes. In His pre-incarnate state, the Son displayed the full radiance of deity. In the incarnation, He cloaked that glory in human flesh.

Jesus hinted at this when He prayed: 'And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began' (John 17:5). The glory was not lost but veiled — and He asked for it to be fully manifested again.

The Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8) offers a glimpse: for a moment, the veil was pulled back, and the disciples saw 'his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.' This was not a new glory given to Jesus but His inherent divine glory breaking through the human form.

View 3: Ontological kenosis (Liberal/Kenotic Theology proper)

In the 19th century, German theologians like Gottfried Thomasius and Wolfgang Friedrich Gess proposed that the Son literally surrendered certain divine attributes (such as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence) in the incarnation. He truly became limited — not just in experience but in nature.

This view takes the language of 'emptying' most literally. Christ did not merely choose not to use His divine power — He genuinely did not have it during His earthly life. He grew in knowledge (Luke 2:52) because He actually needed to learn. He was genuinely surprised, genuinely tired, and genuinely limited.

Critics of this view argue that it undermines the immutability of God and creates a logical problem: can God cease to be omniscient and still be God? The Council of Chalcedon's definition seems to exclude this view by affirming that Christ's divine nature remained complete.

View 4: Functional kenosis (Moderate/Evangelical)

A mediating position holds that the kenosis was functional rather than ontological. Christ retained all divine attributes but voluntarily restricted their use to operate within the constraints of a genuine human life. He chose to live by faith, to depend on the Holy Spirit, and to experience the limitations of human existence — not because He had to, but because the mission required it.

This view emphasizes that Jesus lived His earthly life as a Spirit-empowered man, providing a model for how believers should live. His miracles came through the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:28), His knowledge through the Father's revelation (John 5:19-20), and His power through obedient dependence. He was, in this sense, the perfect human — showing what human life looks like in full reliance on God.

The Ethical Dimension

Paul did not introduce kenosis as an abstract theological puzzle. He introduced it as an ethical model: 'In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus' (Philippians 2:5). The context is a community struggling with 'selfish ambition' and 'vain conceit' (2:3).

The application is direct: if the eternal Son of God — who had every right to assert His divine privilege — chose instead to serve, humble Himself, and sacrifice for others, then Christians have no excuse for self-promotion, power-grabbing, or status-seeking.

Kenosis redefines power. In the world's economy, power means asserting your rights. In Christ's economy, power means voluntarily surrendering them for the sake of others. This is not weakness — it is the supreme expression of strength under control.

Kenosis and the Cross

The hymn does not stop at incarnation. The downward movement continues: 'He humbled himself by becoming obedient to death — even death on a cross!' (2:8). The cross is the ultimate kenosis. On the cross, the One who sustains all things (Colossians 1:17) allowed Himself to be killed by His own creatures. The One who is the source of all life (John 1:4) chose to die. The One who said 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30) cried out 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' (Matthew 27:46).

The paradox of the cross is the paradox of kenosis pushed to its extreme: infinite power expressed through utter powerlessness, divine love demonstrated through voluntary suffering, eternal life conquering death by submitting to it.

Exaltation: The Other Half

Kenosis is not the whole story. Paul immediately followed the descent with the ascent: 'Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name' (2:9). The self-emptying leads to super-exaltation. Humiliation precedes glorification.

This pattern — descent then ascent, death then resurrection, emptying then filling — is the fundamental rhythm of the gospel and the Christian life. Jesus told His disciples: 'Whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it' (Matthew 16:25). Kenosis is the path to glory, not its opposite.